Roof top load limits

Submitted: Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 15:55
ThreadID: 61692 Views:5174 Replies:5 FollowUps:9
This Thread has been Archived
Other than the manufacturers specs, are their any other LEGAL limitations on the load you can carry on the roof of a vehicle. I know there are common sense and safety aspects such as creating a top heavy load. I'm interested to see if there are any LEGAL restrictions.

The reason I ask is that my new 70 Series with Roscos aluminium canopy has a roof carry limit of 200KG (and that is before I had them include ROPS, so it is probably more now). I'm looking to take advantage of this by carryinig a bigger roof topper tinnie than I previouosly had.

The largest I'm considering is a Stacer Proline 3.99. It is 3.99 long, 1.82 wide and weighs 111KG. Add 30 to 35 KG for the boat loader / carry racks and about 30 KG of other stuff under the boat, and I could have 170 to 180 KG up there.

That's a lot of weight, but it is well within the vehicles capability. And it is probably only 20 or 30 KG more than many people with a 100KG roof limit carry - but that's their problem not mine.

Apart from the roof carry capacity, I have had the GVM for the vehicle upgraded (and certified). I now have a payload of 1,700 KG. I'm not planning on using it all, but having paid for it, I might as well get the benefit.

So, is anyone aware of any restriction on roof load other than the manufacturer's specs?

Norm C
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Russ n Sue - Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 17:06

Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 17:06
Can't help you with legal limits but I do know that the type of vehicle that you drive gets the nickname of Toyota Rollux. That's gotta tell you something.

Cheers

Russ.
AnswerID: 325416

Follow Up By: Gramps (NSW) - Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 17:19

Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 17:19
"The reason I ask is that my new 70 Series ......." That's gotta tell you something.

0
FollowupID: 592511

Follow Up By: Russ n Sue - Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 17:26

Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 17:26
Whoops! Missed that. Read the profile and obviously got the out-of-date info.

Still, the same principle applies. Any weight high up needs to be taken into account when considering the vehicle's stability, regardless of whether it is legal or otherwise.

Cheers

Russ.
0
FollowupID: 592514

Follow Up By: Member - Norm C (QLD) - Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 17:56

Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 17:56
Agreed Russ and I acknowledged that in my original post and will consider it as I make my decision.

Just looking to see if there are any rules to consider as well.

Norm C
0
FollowupID: 592517

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 18:02

Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 18:02
" I know there are common sense and safety aspects such as creating a top heavy load. I'm interested to see if there are any LEGAL restrictions."

Read the Post...not the profile

LOL
0
FollowupID: 592518

Reply By: Hairy (NT) - Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 18:13

Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 18:13
Gday,
Here is a link to to the NTC Australia load restraint guide..It might be of some help.

Load Restraint Guide

I had a quick look in mine and couldnt see anything?
I think it would be pretty hard to prove anyway, without the scaleys taking your load off your roof and weighing it seperately anyway. Just dont go over your GVM and I doubt anyone will ever say anything.

Cheers
AnswerID: 325423

Reply By: jdwynn (Adelaide) - Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 18:33

Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 18:33
Norm, I don’t believe there are any other limitations, but every state has different legislation (and interpretations) and hence you should check with the local vehicle certification authority in Qld (a call will cost you nothing)......and yes I know people have had problems driving interstate too, but what can you do about that??

One aspect that always concerns me is legislation and interpretation relating to ‘protrusions’. That covers everything we hang off a car (aftermarket I guess). All vehicle standards / legislation cover this. Seems to me that we get away with the things we do (as 4 wheelers) due to a fair amount of goodwill and common sense on the part of police and authorities. Personally I think we just have to be sensible regarding protrusions - look out otherwise.

You didn't mention insurance, and that is just about as compelling as anything else i.e. if not operating as per manufacturer's recommendations or within certification limits, as I understand it you might be uninsured.

Be interested in other responses - good luck
AnswerID: 325431

Follow Up By: Member - Norm C (QLD) - Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 19:15

Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 19:15
jd, I'm quite happy that I will be operating well within the manufacturer's (Toyota, Roscos and ARB (for suspension and GVM upgrade)) specs. I'll also be under the certified GVM for the vehicle. Unless there is some 'catch all' law I'm not aware of covering 'roof load' (like for example 'regardless of vehicle manufacturers specification, the roof load on any vehicle is not to be more than x% of the GVM of the vehicle), I can't see how I would have a problem with insurance. By the way, in my case, x would need to be 4 or less for there to be a problem.

But that goes to the heart of my question - is there a 'catch all' law I'm not aware of. I doubt it, but thought I'd ask. There is plenty of experience here on ExploreOz. If no one is aware of anything, I doubt it is even worth asking the govt authorities.
0
FollowupID: 592533

Reply By: P7OFFROAD Accredited Driver Training - Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 21:40

Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 21:40
A good question.

I've not seen or heard of anything, (the question that jumps to mind would be how would they classify racks on the back of a builders ute, these aren't a roof load but would affect the vehicle in a similar way).

I'd be wary of protrusions, (all sides) I know that the police can and do follow the book on that one. I recall an extended conversation whilst scanning police channels one day where the beat cop had someone in the station call up the actual legislation and read it to him, as the person he had pulled over obviously had a different interpretation of 'legal'.
AnswerID: 325486

Follow Up By: Member - Norm C (QLD) - Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 21:59

Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 21:59
The protrusion issue you and jdwynne (above) raise is a fair one.

The floor and bottom half of the canopy are 1900mm wide. The roof is 1500mm wide. My boat loader will be about 1900mm wide, so although it will protrude past the roof, it will not be wider than the base and bottom half of the canopy and will be over 200mm narrower than the external mirrors.

I'm guessing that will be OK. I'll see if I can find some more info on protrusions to check further.
0
FollowupID: 592559

Reply By: Member - Norm C (QLD) - Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 22:16

Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 22:16
It seems that National 'Vehicle Standards Information 10', allows side protrusions of up to 150mm on each side of a vehicle.
So I will be fine.

Interestingly, I'm not sure how this impacts on towing mirrors. Ar mirrors only supposed to protrude 150mm max from the widest part of the vehicle body? Or is it that you can't move the mirrors out more than 150mm from original width? Don't know the answer to that one.
AnswerID: 325497

Follow Up By: jdwynn (Adelaide) - Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 23:21

Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 23:21
Norm, SA Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Rules 1999 says the following about Protrusions:
(1) An object fitted to a vehicle must be designed, built and fitted to the vehicle in a way that minimises the likelihood of injury to a person making contact with the vehicle.
(2) However, subrule (1) does not apply to an object fitted to a vehicle if:
(a) the vehicle was designed before 1965 and the object was part of the design of the vehicle; or
(b) the object was fitted to the vehicle before 1965 in accordance with the law of the place where the object was fitted.

I believe this was taken from national model legislation when all the states were (basically) brought into line in 1999.

I didn't mean to skew your post though which was about weight. I raised protrusions as the only other related matter I could think of because I don't think there is any control on weight other than what's been discussed.
cheers
0
FollowupID: 592571

Follow Up By: jdwynn (Adelaide) - Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 23:24

Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 23:24
Here's the bit about mirrors in the SA reg's:
35-Rear vision mirrors
(1) A rear vision mirror or mirrors must be fitted to a motor vehicle as required by this rule so that a driver of the vehicle can clearly see by reflection the road behind the vehicle and any following or overtaking vehicle.
(2) At least 1 rear vision mirror must be fitted to:
(a) a car; and
(b) a motor trike with 2 front wheels; and
(c) a motor bike, or motor trike with 1 front wheel, built before July 1975.
(3) At least 1 rear vision mirror must be fitted to each side of:
(a) a motor vehicle with a GVM over 3.5 tonnes; and
(b) a motor bike, or motor trike with 1 front wheel, built after June 1975.
(4) A motor vehicle with a GVM not over 3.5 tonnes (except a motor vehicle mentioned in subrule (2) or (3)) must be fitted with:
(a) at least 1 rear vision mirror on the right side of the vehicle; and
(b) at least 1 rear vision mirror on the left side of the vehicle or inside the vehicle.
(5) A rear vision mirror fitted to a motor vehicle with a GVM over 3.5 tonnes must not project over 150 millimetres beyond the widest part (excluding lights, signalling devices and reflectors) of the vehicle or combination.
(6) However, the rear vision mirror may project not over 230 millimetres beyond the widest part of the vehicle or combination if it can fold to project not over 150 millimetres beyond the widest part.
36—Rear vision mirrors—surfaces
(1) A rear vision mirror required to be fitted to the side of a motor vehicle with a GVM over 3.5 tonnes must have a reflecting surface of at least 150 square centimetres.
(2) A rear vision mirror required to be fitted to the right side of a motor vehicle with a GVM over 3.5 tonnes must have a flat reflecting surface if:
(a) the motor vehicle has only 1 steering control; and
(b) the centre of the steering control is to the right of, or in line with, the centre of the motor vehicle.
(3) The reflecting surface of the rear vision mirrors that are required to be fitted to a motor bike or moped must:
(a) each be of the same curvature; and
(b) if convex, be part of a notional sphere with a radius of at least 1.2 metres.
37—Additional rear vision mirrors
A motor vehicle may be fitted with additional rear vision mirrors or mirror surfaces that are flat or convex or a combination of flat and convex surfaces.


0
FollowupID: 592572

Follow Up By: Bware (Tweed Valley) - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 00:37

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 00:37
Wow, is it any wonder that people get it wrong when there are that many regulations and sub-regulations just for rear vision mirrors and just in one state?

Sorry to go off on a tangent but over-regulation is a pet hate.
My tyres protrude from my base model 80 series less than 10mm but that is illegal. They aren't wide tyres; on a GXL with wider mud guards they would be legal. Or i could put a 10mm strip of rubber on the mud guard and the same tyres are legal! The standard front bumper bar sticks out to the side further than that. But it is OK to have 230mm mirrors sticking out to side swipe a pedestrian. It's OK for a B-double which is another 1/2 metre wider to drive at 100kph.

I have a vision of the Monty Python crew sitting in a room trying to make up the most stupid rules they can.....
"No, no, that won't do. How about 'You can only enter a roundabout at less than 20kph as long as the flowers are in bloom in the planter box in the middle, otherwise yell out at the top of your voice 'hey diddle, diddle' and charge through except if it is Monday. All in favour say Aye"

0
FollowupID: 592578

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)